Back to all available

Infection process, viability and survival of cotton rust (Phakopsora gossypii) under different storage conditions

agricultural-science
plant-science

Abstract

Cotton rust, caused by the biotrophic fungus Phakopsora gossypii, is an emerging disease in cotton that has led to significant yield losses in cotton-cultivated areas of India. Considering the current significance of rust and the need for additional basic information about its causal agent for better disease control, this study aimed to determine the infection process of the pathogen in cotton leaves using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). By 42 hours after inoculation (hai), the uredospores of the rust pathogen had germinated and produced a germ tube and an appressorium capable of directly penetrating the leaf cuticle. By 20 days after inoculation (dai), closed uredia with uredospores appeared on the abaxial leaf surface. By 25 days, these uredia began opening and were fully open with numerous uredospores by 35 days. The results of this study provide new insights into the infection process of P. gossypii in cotton leaves, potentially aiding in the effective strategies for controlling rust disease. Uredospore germination began early (25.30% at 4 hours) and increased over time, reaching 69.40% after 8 hours. Maximum germination (94.35%) occurred at 72 hours. At 25°C, maximum germination (96.40%) was recorded after 24 hours. Higher temperatures showed reduced germination: 36.12% at 30°C, 13.54% at 35°C, and 2.15% at 40°C, indicating that temperatures above 25°C are unfavorable for uredospore germination.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].